[Full disclosure notice: the point of this post will not come until the very end; if no interest in politics this day — and believe me, I get that — feel free to skip to the final paragraph.]
Milli Vanilli told us to “Blame It on the Rain.”
Michael Caine and company told us to “Blame It on Rio.”
The second season of “Glee” told us to “Blame It on the Alcohol.”
Conveniently targeted others include the night, Bossa Nova, and the Boogie.
Multiple times over the past 7 years, the Intramuralist has made mention of ad hominem attacks. It seems the topic continues to be relevant.
According to Merriam-Webster, “ad hominem” means:
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect; or…
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.
According to Urban Dictionary (because it’s typically much more entertaining), “ad hominem” means: “An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their argument or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.”
In Latin, “ad hominem” means “against the man.” In other words, instead of honestly wrestling with the validity of an accusation, in an ad hominem attack, the responder attempts to shift the focus onto “the man” who asked — getting the focus off of self and hoping to shift the focus elsewhere, thereby never having to actually wrestle with the potential validity of the accusation.
Let the Intramuralist go out on a limb by making the following assertion: ad hominem attacks are alive and well on planet Earth today. When faced with damaging accusations, many have no desire to wrestle with the truth; they instead work to intentionally focus attention elsewhere.
While considering revisiting this too common topic, I ironically awoke to the following headline extracted from the Sunday news shows: “Bill Clinton Blames G.O.P. and Press for Wife’s Email Woes.”
First, for full disclosure, it is a known caveat that the Intramuralist desires someone other than a Bush or Clinton in the White House this time around. I mean no disrespect; I simply believe someone new and fresh has greater potential to lead and unite our country at this time.
Second, consistent with our values, I desire to wrestle with and promote what is good and true and right.
And third, referencing the facts, as reported by numerous news outlets — left, right, and no-bias whatsoever (if that actually exists) — there are multiple activities and comments by Hillary Clinton herself that do not fit together. Some statements are contradictory; some seem like lies. The FBI is even involved. In other words, Hillary Clinton’s own behavior has contributed to her current predicament. She is declining in popularity. She is being perceived as significantly, increasingly untrustworthy.
So what does Hillary’s spouse do? Blame someone else.
Let’s be honest in acknowledging that there is no doubt that multiple persons have zero desire to see Hillary Clinton win the White House; some will do whatever they (hopefully only) legally can to deter her. There are also persons doing whatever they (again, hopefully only) legally can to deter a Carson, Fiorina, etal. presidency. But what Bill Clinton does in his comments is a clear attempt to redirect the focus, ignoring how Hillary and her campaign have significantly, negatively contributed to her downward slide.
Let’s also not be too hard on Bill. I respect his loyalty, and I have minimal doubt he is alone in his semi-valiant attempts to get the rest of us to focus elsewhere. My small sense, in fact, is that one Mr. Donald Trump may also be well-versed in this disingenuous tactic. In my desire for all that is good and true and right, however, I wish that far fewer candidates would be so well-versed.
(…and the main point of today’s post?) Be prepared. Keep watching. We only have another 405 days until the actual election. (Sigh.)
Respectfully…
AR